Oh, come off the high horse. Â That's as hypocritical as it gets. Â The US obviously didn't target the civilians that were killed, and this coming from a country that deported ITS OWN CITIZENS to death camps. Â Obviously collateral damage was lower by French forces because for the last 200 years (outside of Algeria and the Suez affair) all of their wars were fought on their own territory) and it wouldn't do to kill their own citizens (unless they were Jewish)

Didn't US killed their own Indians? May be you consider they were not true US citizens? What do you think about US people (jew and none jews) who were aware of what germans were doing and waited 3 years to enter in war just because Japan attacked them? When you drop an A bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who do you expect you kill but civilians?

I'm not downplaying the importance of the Russians, but they wouldn't have succeded without US assistance, that much is certain.

I don't know what this statement proves. The Russians could also argue the inverse: if they hadn't opened up another front, the Germans probably would have emerged victorious. The Russians made incredible sacrifices, and sapped much of the German's resources and troops. In America, we don't fuly appreciate what the Russians did. Instead, all we are taught is that because we stepped in, the good guys were able to win.

(ernest @ Feb. 25 2005,16:13) I think it is more easy to fight Vietnam than Germany.

And yet we lost in Vietnam, but we beat Germany. (Lest anyone think I am denigrating the performance of the US Armed forces in Vietnam, I assure you that I am not. Â Let's just say that I have my differences with the Johnson and Nixon Adminstrations.)

But with Russians, Serbs, UK, Polish, Greeks, French... It sounds as if US were not able to win a war alone? It could explain why they are so disappointed when other counties don't want to attack Iraq... Why do you need France (as they don't know to fight) and Germany (as it is your enemy) in Iraq?

(drizzt3117 @ Feb. 25 2005,16:14) Russia was fighting against Germany a whole five months longer than the US was.

This is a little disingenuous, as we did not have any troops in action in the ETO until the invasion of Sicily in July 1943, whereas the Russians had something like 300 divisions on the Eastern Front.

This is true, but ernest said that the US entered the war 4 years after anyone else, which certainly isn't true. The Russians bore much of the burden of the ground warfare during WWII, but would have lost w/o US resupply and a second front.

The Russians bore much of the burden of the ground warfare during WWII, but would have lost w/o US resupply and a second front.

I think they certainly would have lost without US supply. Â But would they have lost without a second front? Â That's harder to say. Â It's at least conceivable that they would have gotten to Berlin. Â Maybe not in 1945, but eventually.

They prefer bombing from boats 5000km away from their enemy like in Serbia.... Less spooky. Â Of course, a real war (face to face on the ground) would make more deads than 2 buildings crashed in NYC... And what to say about bombing Japan with a A bomb? Is it a fair way of making war?

ernest, Â Ever hear the expression all is fair in love and war? Â To say bombing countries from cruise ships is unfair is ridiculous. Â Why is it not fair, because the country we are fighting does not have the same technology? Â You fight a war to win and you use the arsenal you have to accomplish that.

I just think that an army which is used to fight against : - enemy from the third world Â (VIETNAM, IRAq) - enemy which have 25 time less people (Serbia, Cuba) - enemy on which they use an A bomb (Japan) In all cases, enemies which are 7000 km from its own country. A current army composed of Blacks/mexicans teenagers who are Â only considered as american during war (because whites don't need money and so don't join the army). An army who killed/injured more civilians than soldiers in his history (Indians, Japanese, Vietnam...) This type of army can not be considered as a reference in the art of war IMO. May be you consider that droping napalm bomb and A bombs from plans is something one could be proud? Â I do not.

Quote:

May be you consider that droping napalm bomb and A bombs from plans is something one could be proud? I do not.

Ernest, there are so many things wrong with what you claim that others have already beaten me in posting about. I did not say I was proud or unproud of using nuclear weapons. You said it was not fair and I challenged that assertion. Also, we weren't discussing the art of war, I don't remember SunTzu being brought up at all. To you is the only way to fight a fair war the same way wars were fought when France last had a respectable army? Troops lined up perfectly across from each other in an open field shooting at each other with rifles and charging with their bayonets. And lets not forget the advanced weponary back then. The cannon.

(drizzt3117 @ Feb. 25 2005,22:03) Oh, come off the high horse. That's as hypocritical as it gets. The US obviously didn't target the civilians that were killed, and this coming from a country that deported ITS OWN CITIZENS to death camps. Obviously collateral damage was lower by French forces because for the last 200 years (outside of Algeria and the Suez affair) all of their wars were fought on their own territory) and it wouldn't do to kill their own citizens (unless they were Jewish)

Didn't US killed their own Indians? May be you consider they were not true US citizens? What do you think about US people (jew and none jews) who were aware of what germans were doing and waited 3 years to enter in war just because Japan attacked them? When you drop an A bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who do you expect you kill but civilians?

While it's certainly true that the US military knew of the existence of the concentration camps before the end of the war, its likely they didn't know of their existence until 1942-43 at the earliest. Auschwitz wasn't even functional until 1942, and although Dachau was built in 1933, it wasn't used for executions until late 1940. Hiroshima was a civilian city, but it was also the headquarters of the Japanese Imperial Navy, so it was certainly a military target. Nagasaki was also the largest naval base on Kyushu.

Didn't US killed their own Indians? May be you consider they were not true US citizens? What do you think about US people (jew and none jews) who were aware of what germans were doing and waited 3 years to enter in war just because Japan attacked them? When you drop an A bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who do you expect you kill but civilians?

Ernest, it was not our war, we had no reasoning to join in, we did help with aid in military needs etc, but your question goes deeoer,...the French knew what was being done , yet did nothing, why is that, why does America have to come to the resue of the world always, if it had not been for the US joining the war, the rest of the world would be speaking German with the exception maybe, just maybe of the Americas (North and South), and maybe the UK....France would definitely be eating German roast and potatos....guaranteed, hell what help did you all give but a nice place to sleep in a barn when we came to Normandy. We did not kill the Indians until during expansion the Indian tribes attacked the cavalry ands innocent civilians...then we had no choice but to retaliate. WAR kills civilians ernest, all over the world, do you think that Russia, Germany, UK, Italy did not kill any civilians during their bombing, do you remember the Blitz, it killed many English, the only European country who really did not kill anyone except their own was France.